Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile My Website Previous Previous Next Next
Mark Atwood
Worth Reading
Karl Popper's article Science, Pseudo-Science, and Falsifiability

Four theories are put to the test. Einstein's theory of relativity, Marx's theory of history, Freud's psycho-analysis, and Adler's psychology. It should be easy to guess today which three lose.
3 comments or Leave a comment
wendolen From: wendolen Date: April 12th, 2006 12:24 am (UTC) (Link)
Karl Popper on falsifiability was one of the pillars of my childhood education. It's neat to see someone other than my mother bringing him up. :)
zanfur From: zanfur Date: April 12th, 2006 09:59 am (UTC) (Link)
I wrote an articla along similar veins a while ago. Slightly different emphasis. I'd like to know what you think.
elfs From: elfs Date: April 12th, 2006 04:25 pm (UTC) (Link)
This essay has an interesting history with respect to evolutionary theory. Popper initially claimed that evolutionary theory had insufficient risk to be considered a science, but he was then bombarded with the long list of alternatives that showed just how fragile evolutionary theory really is-- and it's at least as "at risk" as anything Einstein came up with, perhaps moreso because there are so many points of falsifiability in even the most general parts of the theory: common descent, radial adaptation, and niche exploitation-- that he retracted and stated firmly that it evolutionary theory was a solid science.

It's funny because I have yet to see anything come out of the anti-evolutionary people that doesn't smack of Marxist verificationism.

3 comments or Leave a comment